--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > > > You're enlightened, and you refuse to even *think*
> > > > that you might not be. Did I get that right, Jim?
> > > >
> > > You are missing what I and many others have already said again
and
> > > again here. Enlightenment is not experienced on the level of
> > thinking.
> > > It is a state of Being. This is not my original expression--
All of
> > > the gurus and spiritual teachers say this also. Given your
> > background,
> > > I am surprised that you don't know this yet. Your level of
> > ignorance
> > > astounds me.:-)
> >
> > It's a little like accusing somebody of refusing
> > even to *think* they might be dreaming rather
> > than awake. When you're awake, it's self-evident
> > you aren't dreaming. (Not "self-evident" meaning
> > "obvious," but rather evident in terms of itself.)
>
> I am not so sure. Some interesting literature an epistimologies
makes
> that very presumption -- that we are dreaming but think we are
awake.
> Parallel to Plato's cave, perhaps.
>
> I think some here, perhaps Rory and Jim, have expressed something
of
> that sort. I do know that when you are dreaming, its hard to accept
> that you are dreaming -- but assume you are awake. Though
sometimes in
> the dream, you can be aware its a dream. But not so often, i think.
>
The only logical conclusion to your statements, though, is an
infinite regress in which all states of consciousness are then
invalidated through equivocation. Can be said of anything really. A
supposition which then makes any kind of reality based discourse
impossible, ergo, no learning from one another is possible. Is that
where you want to keep this discussion? If the answer is "yes", why?
Seems like a big time waster. :-)
